Getting rid of Gaddafi is the real war aim

The Libyan foreign minister, Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, warns that Britain's despatching military personnel to help the rebels endangers the chance of peace. He would say that.

Sending military experts to provide expertise and kit to the rebels is not, as Sir Menzies Campbell suggests, a step towards a new Vietnam. It is, rather, an acknowledgement of the fact that in this civil war, Britain wants Colonel Gaddafi to lose. The single most obvious aim of British foreign policy here is not only that civilians should not be massacred in the conflict but also that it should end with the departure of Colonel Gaddafi. This is partly because of Britain's own history with the regime but it is also emphatically in the interests of the Libyan people.

The man has presided over a one-party despotism for the past 40 years - admittedly, hardly unique in the region - and it would be in the interests of democracy if he were to go and if free elections followed. After the Arab spring in Tunisia and Egypt, it would be disheartening if the region's democracy movement died in Libya.

How we get to that point is a pragmatic matter. Ideally, the regime would capitulate peacefully, as in Egypt. And today we learn that the Libyan government has offered peace talks that include the possibility that Colonel Gaddafi would step down. That is a hopeful development, though we should be wary of yet another offer of a ceasefire: those offers have usually come to nothing and this one may be a ploy. But if, remarkably, the regime were to offer a ceasefire followed by transition to genuinely free elections - which, of course, Colonel Gaddafi's party, led by his tainted son, could win - that would be another matter.

Meanwhile, Britain is right to help the rebels in any way it can short of involving ground troops. But we should be doing more. We know little about the rebels' agenda; we should be talking to the leadership of this disparate and ill-organised group to help identify their aspirations for a post-Gaddafi Libya and consolidate their commitment to free elections. Getting rid of the Gaddafi regime - unless the people freely vote them back in - is only a first step. Planning for the future is the hard part.

Sense on security

The chairman of British Airways, Sir Martin Broughton, suggests that trusted passengers should be able to skip thoroughgoing security checks at airports. "Is it sensible," he asked, "to run exactly the same security checks on pilots - each and every time they fly - as, for example, on a Yemeni student?" The answer, of course, is no.

But it is one thing to argue for rational security checks, another to move to a US system which allows passengers to bypass immigration controls for a fee. Fast-tracking should be free. What is actually needed is more pragmatic discrimination in airport security: there is nothing inherently wrong with profiling. An elderly English lady is less likely to be a threat to security than a Yemeni student. Acknowledging as much is common sense. While he's about it, Sir Martin could bring the same rational approach to absurd restrictions on hand-luggage, including liquids and gels. That really annoys passengers.

Jubilee line chaos

Spare a thought in the spring sunshine for the wretched commuters trapped underground yesterday evening on the Jubilee line. Boris Johnson has said the episode is a disgrace, and so it is. Occasional lapses happen but on this line, with its high-tech communications systems, they happen far too often. It's got to be sorted out now.